- #31
wasteofo2
- 477
- 2
loseyourname said:
Texas Marriage Ban: HJR No. 6 & Family Values
- Context: News
- Thread starter Astronuc
- Start date
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers on Texas House Joint Resolution No. 6, which aims to ban gay marriage. Participants explore the implications of the resolution's wording, its constitutionality, and the intersection of marriage with religious and civil rights. The conversation includes various perspectives on marriage, homophobia, and the role of the state versus the church in recognizing marriage.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
- Exploratory
Main Points Raised
- Some participants argue that the resolution's wording is poorly constructed and may unintentionally outlaw marriage for all, not just same-sex couples.
- Others assert that the ban is unconstitutional and predict it will be challenged in court.
- There are differing views on the relationship between homophobia and the religious basis for opposing gay marriage.
- Some participants express confusion about the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage, questioning if a marriage can exist that is recognized by the state but not by the church.
- A few participants highlight the practical benefits of marriage, such as legal rights and social security, suggesting that the issue extends beyond sexuality.
- One participant humorously suggests that men should unite to ban marriage altogether.
- There is a discussion about the identity relation in logic and mathematics as it pertains to the definition of marriage, with some participants engaging in a more technical analysis of the language used in the resolution.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of the resolution, the nature of marriage, and the relationship between civil and religious recognition of marriage.
Contextual Notes
Some arguments rely on interpretations of legal language and definitions, which may be subject to varying assumptions. The discussion also touches on broader social issues, including the intersection of law, religion, and personal rights.
- #32
Danger
Gold Member
- 9,793
- 250
Regardless of where it came from, it's hilarious.jimmysnyder said:
edit: Yours too, LYN.
- #33
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,207
- 25
I stand corrected. Does such a creature exist ?loseyourname said:
Psst : No offense meant to Evo, MIH, Astro, TSA? and some others here, who I'm sure are not really all that Texan !
- #34
Evo
Staff Emeritus
- 24,032
- 3,277
I was born and raised in Houston, Texas, but my parents were not from there, so I was raised like a normal human and luckily, was not Texanized.Gokul43201 said:I stand corrected. Does such a creature exist ?
Psst : No offense meant to Evo, MIH, Astro, TSA? and some others here, who I'm sure are not really all that Texan !
MIH was raised by wolves, so she's ok.
Astronuc is an Aussie, so he was spared.
Don't know about TSA though.
- #35
- 22,514
- 7,454
I lived in Houston for about 13 years, but I was vaccinated before I arrived.
Some family and many friends still live there.
BTW - George Walker Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut. So he's not really Texan.
Some family and many friends still live there.
Many Texans thought I was from NY or Boston or somewhere from the NE US, or even UK.
BTW - George Walker Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut. So he's not really Texan.
See some really great things come from Texas. I wished I'd known the prettiest girl in Texas was living nearby.Evo said:
Last edited:
- #36
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,207
- 25
Phew ! Good thing that. Else we'd have had to call in a Texorcist or make you go through a complete detexification.Evo said:I was born and raised in Houston, Texas, but my parents were not from there, so I was raised like a normal human and luckily, was not Texanized.
- #37
Futobingoro
I think that one would be surprised to know how many "tolerant" people are actually very intolerant. A quick Google search turned up this site, which contains the comments of some very intolerant "tolerant" people:Evo said:
Such rhetoric reminds many of KKK speeches, but these were the remarks of a pro-Gay Rights individual, talking about a website which is very critical of the Gay Rights movement! Others made similar comments about the "homophobes" who run the website. Unfortunately, when people make these statements about homophobes, they become "homophobephobes" by definition.
I do not think that the people in this thread are anywhere close to the individuals on the other website, but "homophobephobia" is a trap that all should be aware of.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #38
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 8,213
- 2,660
Gokul43201 said:
You can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell him much.
That reminds me of the time I had to rent a truck in Texas. I went on down to Y'all Haul and got the truck...
Okay now stop that.
We all love Texas, right y'all! :shy:- #39
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 11,919
- 54
Actually, it seems perfectly constitutional to me...it equally bans everyone from getting married. I have no problem with that. If a state wants to ban marriage completely, for everyone, then I say go for it (it takes a lot of the pressure off us single peopleGokul43201 said:
). Russ, the way it's worded is they provide a definition, and then say anything identical to what was described in that definition (marriage), is banned. Legally speaking, I'd have to agree that the interpretation is that marriage, as well as things similar to marriage, are prohibited. The only ambiguity is "how similar" is similar? They may have actually prohibited marriage between men and women, but if the rationale is that a civil union between two men or two women is something different than marriage between a man and a woman, it may be that only civil unions for gay couples are now permitted.
- #40
wasteofo2
- 477
- 2
Oh my god, you're a genius...Moonbear said:They may have actually prohibited marriage between men and women, but if the rationale is that a civil union between two men or two women is something different than marriage between a man and a woman, it may be that only civil unions for gay couples are now permitted.
That would be so great if some gay couple argued that in court and they won. It'd be like how the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was used for a bit to justify breaking up unions...
- #41
Danger
Gold Member
- 9,793
- 250
Brilliant, Moonbear! I can't wait to see the first court case. 
- #42
franznietzsche
- 1,503
- 6
That'll teach the "Jesus Hates"(tm) people why they shouldn't be against education. Now they'll all have to burn for eternity for being forced to marry people of the same sex.Moonbear said:They may have actually prohibited marriage between men and women, but if the rationale is that a civil union between two men or two women is something different than marriage between a man and a woman, it may be that only civil unions for gay couples are now permitted.
- #43
- 22,514
- 7,454
Yes, she is. That's our Moonbear. Actually come to think of it, all the PF sisters are quite brilliant.wasteofo2 said:
